ARTICLE

Schools design quality: A user perspective

Allan Stringer1, Jack Dunne2 and Halim Boussabaine2*
1
AssaelArchitecture Limited, London, UK
2
School of Architecture, University of Liverpool, London, UK

Abstract
The Building Schools for the Future was launched by the Government in 2004. The aim of the programme was,
under the last Labour Government, to rebuild or renew every secondary school in England by 2020. It
represented the biggest capital investment in schools since the 1960s and was designed to explicitly integrate
the design quality of schools with the quality of education. It was therefore of the utmost importance for
architects, and the construction industry as a whole, to design buildings that were fit for their purpose as 21st
century learning environments. Doubts were raised particularly by the Commission for Architecture and the
Built Environment (CABE), in 2006, about whether the quality of these new schools met the educational
aspirations of then Government. It was speculated that some of these new schools lacked the inspiring,
innovative and flexible spaces the Labour Government was aiming for, leaving a concern that many of these
new schools would exhibit the same problems as the schools that they have replaced. Hence, it was the aim
of this study to understand the successes and failures of the Building Schools for the Future programme since
the CABE review, with regard to the quality of design in recently completed secondary schools. This was
undertaken principally through a questionnaire survey of schools completed between 2006 and 2009. Analysis
of the data indicated that there are improvements on some aspects of design quality. Particularly there are
improvements in relation to building envelope, public presence, circulation patterns, acoustic, lighting and
ventilation strategies. However, the issues of inadequacy of resilient materials specification and a lack of
storage are still unresolved.

B Keywords – Building schools for the future; design quality; education; post occupancy survey; CABE review

INTRODUCTION on how to define design quality and what to include

The design quality of building assets in the Building
Schools for the Future (BSF) programme is an
essential driver for the end user’s daily quality of life
and healthy working and living environments. The
difficulty of quantifying ‘design quality intangibles’
has led to a plethora of research reports and audits
by academics and government agencies. The aim of
the majority of these reports is to address the issue
of design quality in the post-occupancy stage of the
building assets with the aim of improving and
evaluating the design quality of buildings. Even
though there seems to be a general argument on
the need to assess the quality of design, the issue
in the assessment remains an ongoing research
issue. For example, the design process complexity is
stated as ‘design is a functional expertise that holds
apart, but also brings together, the craft of making
and the experience of using‘ (Cardellino, Leiringer, &
Clements-Croome, 2009, pp. 249 –62). Therefore,
design quality is a multi-faceted phenomenon.
Erdem et al. (2011, p. 72) states that ‘Educational
Design has to be a collaborative process – from
local authorities, teachers and school governors’
right through to technical and legal advisors. Several
regional development agencies have looked at the
design of buildings, and have ‘developed

B *Corresponding author: E-mail: halim@liv.ac.uk

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT B 2012 B VOLUME 8 B 257–272

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2012.683768 ª 2012 Taylor & Francis ISSN: 1745-2007 (print), 1752-7589 (online) www.tandfonline.com/taem
258 A. STRINGER et al.
mechanisms and standards by which design quality
can be judged and improved’. The Midlands regional
development agency has stated housing design
quality is best achieved if consensus is reached
regarding the criteria which govern good design.
It argues that ‘such common ground should be
capable of being tested across the whole field of
planning and environmental design, its legitimacy
seen to be derived from accepted principles of
composition exemplified in other art forms such as
painting and music’, that is, creativity, design
process ‘the whole design picture’, scale and form
and function. ‘Design is considered as a process
which attractively brings together all the practical
functions of a . . . scheme’ (p. 11).
Research by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2001)
found that ‘on balance, the research suggests that,
where there are statistically significant effects of
capital on performance, these are positive. ‘The UK
Government (Department for Education and
Employment)’ in 2002 shifted towards ‘developing
capacity at local level to change children’s lives, and
devolve resource and power to local level’. This
concept was to become the foundation of BSF. The
consultation paper outlining BSF was published 2002.
It set out the goal of ‘transforming learning and
working environments’. It is noted in the House of
Commons paper ‘Sustainable Schools: Are we
building schools for the future?’ (2007); however, a
methodology for educational transformation has
never been set out, nor have its goals been stated
despite being a key concept of BSF. The BSF was
officially launched in 2004. It pledged to ‘rebuild or
refurbish all secondary schools in England over 15
years at a cost of £45 billion’ (CABE, 2007). Byles
(2007), the chief executive of Partnerships for Schools
(PfS), described the programme as ‘a new generation
of school investment, combining three key
ingredients: procurement, educational vision and
estate wide planning’. It is hoped that an emphasis on
these three areas will ‘ensure that our new schools
provide high quality, inspiring learning environments’
(2007). PfS was responsible for the delivery of the BSF
programme. It was a non-departmental government
body that described their role as ensuring ‘that
investment in secondary schools is based on robust
educational strategies and that BSF schools and
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
academies are well designed, are built on time at a
reasonable cost to the taxpayer, and are properly
maintained over their lifetime’ (PfS, 2009).
The PfS had aimed to make the procurement
process as efficient as possible, for example, all
procurement and contractual documentation is
standardized (PfS, 2008) so that the local authority
does not spend an undue amount of time preparing
the Official Journal of the European Union notice.
This was also a benefit to bidders because once
they have familiarized themselves with one BSF bid
they can then concentrate on the design element of
each project.
CABE (now part of the Design Council) were
commissioned by the Government to review BSF
schemes. Consequently, CABE (2006b) published a
report in 2006 titled ‘Assessing secondary school
design quality’. Their review of BSF attracted
criticism despite several schemes being declared
‘mediocre’ or ‘not yet good enough’; they were
approved planning permission with minor or no
changes (Crump, 2008). In response, CABE was
given powers that required all schools to meet a
certain design threshold before schemes could apply
for planning permission (CABE, 2009). Despite this
concern, The Department for Children, Schools and
Families (DCSF) continues to promote Private
Finance Initiative (PFI) as their preferred procurement
route for educational buildings across primary and
secondary sectors (Grew, 2002). However, the PfS
aimed to fund BSF so that approximately 50% of the
floor area in a ‘wave’ is new build, 35% is
significantly remodelled and 15% is minor
refurbishment works (PfS, 2007). Although PFI was
preferred for new build schemes, where the
percentage of new build dropped below 70%, the
Government believed a design and build contract
offered better value for money. Therefore, around
half of all BSF building contracts are PFI and the
other half design and build (PfS, 2008).
Finch (2009) believes that ‘the UK is still grappling
with the implications of PFI and its procurement
implications – that is to say, grappling more with
building product than educational outcomes’. He
goes on: ‘[School children] experience hierarchy and
freedom, control and play, learning and enjoyment,
sometimes simultaneously. Do we really want those

experiences to be determined by a belief that chairs
should be procured on the basis of price and
replacement cost, rather than ergonomics and
robustness?’ However, school designer, Rogers
states: ‘BSF was a very difficult process. It was
completely flawed with the separation of the client
and design team very problematic, with local
authorities teaming up with private firms and
forming local Education partnerships. If the idea was
to speed up delivery, it failed’ (BD, 2011). G. Bowler,
interview with Aedas Consultants (March 2011).
Architect for Aedas states in relation to a N.W.
school of the bidding stage: ‘We were one of two
shortlisted partners that developed bids – usually
over a period of 16 –20 weeks, but it was
accelerated by the framework user so each bidder
had 14 weeks. Also the ITT process is reduced to 6
weeks from 12 weeks. However, we were still
expected to produce the same resolution in
design . . . hence the results it will produce’.
Architect Charles Evans (BD 15 April 2011, p. 8)
states ‘BSF was plagued by many who were in
charge and had no real knowledge . . . . Most BSF
projects have features that are inappropriate in order
to gain meaningless BREEAM points . . . that is,
biomass boilers to tick the carbon calculator box
rather than genuine carbon reduction systems’. He
argues that collaborative strength is needed to
achieve high-quality design (sometimes on a modest
budget).
Aecom and Sweett (2011) reinforce this view, and
suggest through their case study of Christ the King,
Knowsley, that ‘It does not seem to make sense to
divert significant amounts of a schools building
budget away from creating a learning environment
towards low zero carbon installations’. In their
research project into Design Quality Standards
(Intangibles that bring Hospitals to Life) Farrow and
Vanderkaay (2011) argue for the early involvement of
stakeholders to define boundaries and outcomes in
learning-based facilitated dialogue sessions,
resulting in the ‘Facilities Balanced Scorecard’ –
which helps to measure the gap between
meaningful criteria and proposals (p. 4) to help
develop a step-by-step method for developing
design quality standards. They stress that to raise
design quality standards, advocacy alone is unlikely
Schools design quality 259
to result in significant change. By capturing ‘design
intangible qualities’ in precise terms, standards can be
rigorously monitored using the ‘Balanced Scorecard’.
It is also worth noting that one of the main drivers
behind BSF was the inflexibility of current building
stock to deliver a modern education. It could well be
the case that this is repeated with the new schools
that are maintained by private sector financiers and
construction firms. From these initial difficulties one
can argue that it was evident that there will barriers
to the success of BSF, namely the marginalization of
CABE during the early stages of the design process,
and the unprecedented levels of investment which is
perhaps why PfS has attracted criticism over its
loose control of local authorities’ spending. These
problems manifest themselves in the standard of
design present in many of these new schools, which
do not stand up to the past government’s pledges
regarding education. Hence, in this study we will try
to develop an understanding of the successes and
failings of the BSF programme with regard to the
quality of design in recently completed secondary
schools. Accordingly, the next section of the paper
provides a detailed examination of what design
quality in school design means, and how it is
currently measured and assessed. This exercise
leads directly into the third part, which is the
development of a research methodology we used to
assess the design quality of schools investigated.
Finally, this paper will present and discuss the
findings of this research in order to reach a conclusion.
DESIGN QUALITY OF SECONDARY
SCHOOLS
Cardellino et al.’s (2009, p. 260) findings show that
‘Aspirations of educational transformation are best
managed through active involvement and support of
school staff in the design process’. They go on to
state that concerns were consistently raised that
under the BSF system user participation was
partially lost and that a truly ‘fit for purpose’
educational facility can only be achieved through
more participation of the teachers in the whole
process. Omnipresent also in their study was the
challenge faced in attempting to ‘operationalize’
notions of design quality. BRE stress that the past
occupancy evaluation (POE) (or building performance
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
260 A. STRINGER et al.
feedback) should be linked in with the RIBA plan of
work (stage L) as it ‘completes the feedback loop of
the building procurement lifecycle’, (p. 1). Architects
and building providers need to ensure that
‘performance review’ of completed buildings is
carried out rigorously at 6- and 12-monthly intervals.
This is a critical component in ensuring that lessons
are learned as to the success or otherwise of initial
design decisions in terms of deliverable quality over
time. The suggestion to extend the process of
design to RIBA post-occupation stage it will go a
long way to address the issue or reviewing design
performance in relation to all aspects of design
quality including energy/carbon performance in use
and other quality drivers.
From a theoretical standpoint of view, the concept
of quality is a difficult one to define because it can be
related to many different elements of a process and
outcome. However, it can be broadly defined within
the following four different categories (Evans &
Lindsay, 2008):
l Judgemental quality about product design;
l User-based quality to measure the ‘fitness for
purpose’;
l Value-based quality to measures the quality of a
product or service cost;
l Manufacturing-based quality for conformance to
specification.
In the context of the UK construction industry, quality is
typically defined as product based or manufacturing
based. That is to say, quality that can be measured
against a set specification or performance of a
specific function. One might argue that the best
known specifications of quality are the building
regulations, which were created by the Building Act
of 1984. Their purpose is to ‘ensure the health,
safety, welfare and convenience of people in and
around buildings [. . . and to] provide for energy
conservation (Building Act, 1984)’. The British
Standards Institution is also responsible for many of
the standards that the construction industry works to
and is frequently referenced in the building regulations.
The four categories of quality stated by Evans and
Lindsay (2008) are relevant in the context of design
quality within an architectural practice. These
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
concepts of quality measurement are applicable from
one stage of the design process to the next, from the
appointment of the design team, to the creation of a
brief to the specification of materials and production
of working drawings. All of these processes will have
an influence over the quality of the final design. Finn
(2011) looked at design quality in the field of Design
Engineering and states that ‘Practitioners of design
quality are reaping great benefits by pushing design
quality awareness into the engineering process’,
(rather than in a post-occupancy situation). He argues
that in other industries such as automotive,
electronics and consumer products, inefficiencies
have arisen through the perception that ‘the design
process, unlike the manufacturing process, is not a
series of repeatable actions that can be controlled.
But the regular, repeatable errors that design data
contain prove this perception false’ (p. 2).
Schools as a building typography are subject to a
whole series of design quality criteria beyond the
building regulations and British standards. The
building bulletin series of documents are produced
by the DCSF and also cover a wide range of design
issues from school planning down to acoustic and
lighting requirements.
The two most commonly used building bulletins are
BB98, which is designed to ‘set out simple, realistic,
non-statutory area guidelines for secondary school
buildings and grounds’ (DfES, 2006) and BB102, which
is titled ‘Designing for disabled children and children
with special educational needs‘ (DCSF, 2007).
Although the building bulletins can be used to assist
the design of a school, they are rarely used as a
measure of design quality, because they merely define
the minimum standards which schools must meet.
The most common method for assessing design
quality indicators (DQIs) for schools was developed by
CABE and the Construction Industry Council (CIC). It
encompasses many different aspects of design in
addition to some aspects of environmental performance.
DQI for schools consists of 111 statements that
are split into three separate categories: ‘commodity,
firmness and delight’:
l Functionality, which details the methods by which
the building is designed to be useful, and is further
split into access, space and uses.

l Build quality, which is concerned with the
performance of the building fabric and is further
split into performance, engineering services and
construction.
l Impact, which relates to the buildings success in
creating a sense of place and a positive influence
on the community and environment. This category
is split into the school in its community, within the
school and form and materials.
While designing the brief, the DQI process will be
used to gauge how important certain areas of design
are to the school. The design team, building users
and the client will complete a DQI survey which
outlines their priorities in the new building. As the
scheme develops, the DQI questionnaire is revisited
and can be updated to reflect changing needs or
modifications to the design. The participants
prioritize the statements according to how highly
they value them. The three priority levels are
l Fundamental to the school. Statements that, if
fulfilled, will provide a school that is fit for purpose.
l Add value to the school. Statements that, if
fulfilled, will deal with specific requirements as a
part of the schools vision.
l Excellent to the school. Statements that exceed
client expectations and will make the school stand
out.
The difficulty with a DQI assessment is the subjective
nature of many of the statements, for example ‘the
building should create a sense of ownership by local
people’, which is difficult to quantify. It is possible to
apply objective assessment to many of the
environmental performance statements, however.
The most thorough research into the design
quality of secondary schools was performed by
CABE (2006a). CABE’s team of experienced schools
architects assessed 52 of the 124 secondary schools
that were built between January 2000 and
September 2005 using a modified version of the DQI
for schools. The error level at 95% confidences level
is 10.4%. This level of error suggests that results
can be interested with caution, that is, one should
be careful to generalize from these results. The
report did not consider the opinions of the building
Schools design quality 261
user group, nor the environmental performance of
the buildings.
The key findings of the report were that there were
strong links between the three different DQI
categories and that half of the schools only
managed an overall score of ‘mediocre’ or ‘poor’. It
was noted that all of the ‘excellent’ schools opened
in 2005, suggesting that quality was improving.
Areas in which schools performed best were
generally those that were subject to regulation such
as size, safety, means of escape and accessibility.
Those performing less well were related to storage
facilities, quality of finishes and air temperature and
quality (less subject to regulation).
The links between the different DQI categories is
evidenced by figure 1 which shows a strong
correlation between the overall score of each school
and the overall score of each category. The
relationship between the categories becomes more
obvious when considering the practicalities of school
design. The quality of a teaching space can be
defined as much by the layout of the room
(functionality) as the temperature and air quality
(impact) or the quality of the finishes and fixtures
(build quality). As the CABE (2006b) report is the
most recent and in-depth report into the design
quality of secondary schools, it was intended that
this report be used as a basis for collecting data for
this research. CABE’s sample spanned a 5-year
range from September 2000 to September 2005.
This research covered operating schools after
2005. Our work is based around a sample that
compliments CABE’s audit and used an adapted set
of DQI statements that aimed to highlight different
areas of design quality. Rather than using the
standard headings from DQI for schools
(functionality, build quality and impact), however, it
was the intention to select more specific statements
in order to focus the research and relate design
quality issues on the operating performance of
schools.
RESEARCH METHOD
The methodology consisted of several phases. The
first phase was a literature review on DQIs and
the assessment methods utilized for this purpose.
The DQIs identified were then incorporated into
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
262 A. STRINGER et al.
several DQI categories as will be explained later in this
section. The next phase involved developing the
questionnaires and collection of data. In addition to
demographic data, a list of DQIs derived from the
literature was provided to the respondents who
were asked to rate each DQIs in terms of their
effectiveness using the Likert scale of 1 – 5 (1 being
the lowest score and 5 the highest).
The questionnaire was sent to school users in
the UK. The end users we contacted are head of
the school and their facility management
representatives. Their contact and email addresses
were obtained from the internet. Our purpose was to
collect user perception data on the design quality
which can then be analysed to assess the quality of
the schools in the sample group. The user perception
data were also be used as a comparison with the
research conducted by CABE to determine whether
design quality has improved from 2005 to 2009.
Therefore, the sample group did not include the
schools selected in CABE sample but used those
schools which opened between May 2006 and June
2009. There are a total of 63 schools. Several schools
opened in September 2009; however, they have been
excluded them from the sample because they have
not yet been open for an entire academic year.
There are questions relating to the operation and
maintenance of schools which these newly opened
schools may not yet be able to answer with any degree
of certainty. We have also compared our results with
the data from CABE (2006b) in order to reach an
opinion on whether design has improved from 2005 to
2009. This will then help us to draw a conclusion on the
state of design quality in some of secondary schools in
2009. For analysing our results we have used the
mean, standard deviation and variance statistical
information to describe, present and rank the DQIs
based on the perception of respondents.
DATA COLLATION FORMAT
The first task was to compile a list of secondary
schools that were completed under BSF between
May 2006 and June 2009. The information collected
on the schools includes local authority, procurement
method, architect and contractor.
These headings used for collecting data are based
around CABE’s 10 points for good school design
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
(CABE, 2007). The scope of each of these headings
is outlined under the headings below. An analysis of
the points raised by CABE (2006a) in their report
informed our research methodology. Hence, our
data are collected and arranged under these
headings and are shown in Table 1 and explained
subsequently.
SITE
Site deals with the schools’ response to the local
context and also the quality of the external spaces
within the site boundary. In their report, CABE
(2006b) applauds schools that have ‘resisted
surrounding [themselves] with high-security fencing’.
They also praise those schools that use a subtle
architecture to promote a sense of security around
external spaces. Areas requiring improvement were
the clarity of the building envelope, which at one
extreme were overly complex and unresolved,
further highlighted by ‘unnecessarily complex and
costly detailing, particularly in terms of roof forms
and junctions’ (CABE 2006b). Other schemes
resembled little more than portal frame industrial
structures with poor public presence. From their
evaluation, it is clear that a successful school and its
site need to use a resolved geometry that generates
a sense of place to its users, and a visual focus to
the immediate context. Both these points will
arguably help to create a stronger civic presence in
the surrounding area. In our data collection format
we thus included the following site DQIs:
l The building should be well composed (to attempt
to avoid complex/costly detailing);
l The building should be sited well in relation to its
context;
l The building and external spaces should take
advantage of its orientation on site.
SPACE PLANNING
Space planning deals with the clarity, efficiency and
effectiveness of internal organization; the integration
of community use during the day and out of hours;
and the indoor – outdoor relationship. CABE (2006b)
comment on the successful schemes as all
responding ‘to their site context sensitively and were
variations on a straightforward school typology that

is understood to work effectively’. Less successful
schemes would either ignore these typologies or use
convoluted versions of them, often creating
dead-end corridors or exceedingly long travel
distances. This could simply be the result of poor
decision making at the design layout stages (or
possible future extension facilitation).
The location and size of ancillary spaces would
also be poorly considered in relation to the spaces
they serve. Finally, there is the circulation space
itself, which in the best examples considered the
locations of break-out spaces and teaching bases to
allow for passive supervision, and used stairs, lifts
and toilets at key node points to provide definition.
When considering this evaluation, it is clear that
space planning involves the consideration of many
different aspects of design outside of just the
circulation spaces themselves but also the hierarchy
of spaces they define. At the most basic level,
circulation zones need to be of an adequate width
and height to support a legible layout. It is also
important to consider other areas of the design in
the space planning strategy, for example the zoning
of specialist spaces such as science laboratories or
resistant material workshops may allow for a more
efficient servicing strategy. Thermal and ventilation
zoning may also bring efficiency benefits to spaces
such as kitchens and laboratories, which require a
higher number of air changes than a standard
classroom. Corridor zones will often be heavy on
ductwork and other services and therefore the tight
integration of space planning and ventilation
strategies result in well-detailed circulation areas, for
example service risers could be integrated into a run
of lockers of a similar depth to create a flush finish
to the corridor wall that may wear better than one
with a varied profile. On the basis of this analysis,
we selected the following indicators to assess the
quality of space planning:
l The building should be the right size for its
functions (as per appropriate standards).
l The building should have character.
l The layout should allow for changes of educational
use.
l It should be easy to find your way around the
school for all users.
Schools design quality 263
l Staff and administration areas should be suitable
for the needs of the school workforce.
l The building should provide good access for all
users.
l The ability to extend outwards or upwards in the
future was not a factor considered in CABE’s
overview, so is not included here.
BUILDING PERFORMANCE
Building performance refers to the environmental
performance of the building, and the quality of the
building fabric. It is the area in which most schools
struggled. CABE comment that the most successful
lighting strategies used primary circulation routes as
a method for daylighting adjacent spaces in a
controlled manner, and that stacked corridors would
either feature voids to allow light down from above,
or large windows at the end of the corridor. Some
schemes used exposed concrete soffits and
windows or vents that could be opened to regulate
temperature within the building, while also saving
costs on suspended ceilings. But CABE (2006b) was
quick to point out that schools are ‘under performing
on issues of sustainability and environmental factors
such as acoustics, lighting and ventilation’. They also
note that many spaces such as halls and corridors
had no sources of natural light.
In terms of acoustics, several schools required
retrofit acoustic panelling to resolve reverberation
issues due to poorly specified products that did not
meet the necessary reverberation times. Finally,
CABE (2006b) note that materials specified ‘were
consistently identified as being inadequate for the
wear and tear of a school environment’. Heavily
populated circulation spaces tended to wear the
worst. A combination of narrow corridors and white,
poorly specified plasterboard stud walls look tired
and worn within a matter of months. It is easy to see
now how build quality scored so poorly in CABE’s
audit. What is unusual is that many of these issues
will increase the maintenance and operational costs
of the building, which is under a PFI contract, the
contractor is responsible for (unless the contractor
knows of cheaper ways to actually maintain building
fabric). Contractors often work to very tight
self-imposed budgets in order to maximize profits,
but it may be prudent for the contractor to consider
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
264 A. STRINGER et al.
the relative cost– benefits of investing more capital at
the construction phase. Our operational design
performance indicators included that
l There should be sufficient artificial and natural
lighting levels in the building;
l The use of colour and texture should enhance the
enjoyment of the building;
l The building’s finishes should be durable;
l The thermal climate in the building should be
appropriate to its use;
l The air quality should be appropriate to its use;
l The acoustic quality should be appropriate to its use.
Electrical and IT servicing strategies should also be
imaginatively designed to maximize flexibility of use.
Further research should explore this issue.
SCHOOL FACILITIES
This element looked at the performance of individual
spaces within the school that, in turn, can be related
back to many of the issues prevalent in the space
planning and building performance analysis. For
example, the performance of teaching spaces will be
affected by both quality of lighting and acoustics,
but also the size and location of ancillary spaces
such as storage areas and break-out spaces. In their
evaluation, CABE (2006b) note that ‘a
well-proportioned classroom takes into consideration
a number of factors including the use (specialist or
general teaching), storage, age of students,
pedagogy, class sizes, accessibility etc.’. They also
noted a severe lack of storage space within
classrooms, from integrated storage solutions to
hooks to hang coats from. It is important for the
client team to brief the designers properly, as the
requirement for adequate storage can often be
overlooked. It is worth pointing out that the data
format mainly focussed on communal spaces, so
there is no inclusion of staff rooms, admin etc.
The factors we included in our data format are
l Teaching spaces should be adequate and
appropriate for the curriculum and organization of
the school;
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
l Halls should be of an appropriate size and design
for their intended purpose;
l Learning resource areas should be sufficient and
appropriately located;
l There should be adequate and appropriately
located storage space;
l Dining and social areas should be sufficient to
allow for healthy eating, relaxation and recreation;
l Toilets and changing rooms should be of high
standard and appropriately located.
SELECTION OF QUESTIONS
We used a similar format of a questionnaire, however,
instead of being compiled by a CABE enabler as a part
of an audit, the survey would be sent to the school for
completion by the building users. As explained above,
we grouped our indicators under the headings of site,
space planning, building performance, school
facilities and operational issues, which will assess
the contractor’s performance at maintaining the
building stock. A series of modified statements from
the DQI for schools were then used to gauge the
success of the design with regard to these five areas
as shown in Table 1. The information available in
Table 1 was used to design our survey questions. A
line explaining the scoring principles precedes the
questions, which consist of a series of brief,
understandable statements arranged in a table
underneath a heading relating to each of the
different areas of design quality that will be
analysed. Alongside these statements, there is a
second column in which the respondent can enter
their response to each statement. Using this
method, respondents were able to rate each
statement using their own knowledge, experience
and opinion to inform their response. A consistent
rating scale is used across all questions (from 1 to 5;
1 being the lowest score and 5 the highest). This
consistency in question style is particularly important
to avoid confusion or inaccurate responses. It does
not allow for the respondent to present the
reasoning that informs their answer. We sent the
questionnaire by e-mail to appropriate school users,
that is, the head of the school or their facility
management representative.
 Schools design quality 265

TABLE 1 School design quality constructs participate because of PFI legal contract
CODE Design quality constructs requirements. Although our sample is small with a
Site large error level (17.55) at 95% confidence level, the
R1.1 Acting as a visual focus results are comparable with other similar studies.
R1.2 Helping to create a site with identity Hence, any generalization from the results presented
R1.3 Exploiting views and orientation in this study should take this level of error into
Space planning consideration. The schools in our survey all had
R2.1 Providing for all required functions construction costs of at least £7.5 million. The oldest
R2.2 Giving the school a distinctive character school in the sample group opened in October 2006
R2.3 The flexibility and adaptability of spaces and the newest opened in April 2009. A total of 14
R2.4 Making it easy to find your way around the school architectural practices and 12 contractors worked on
R2.5 Providing suitable staff, administration and reception areas the sample group. The surveyed schools covered 12
R2.6 Providing accessible access for all local authorities and were spread across rural and
Building performance urban sites. The majority of the surveys were
R3.1 A good quality of light (both natural and artificial) completed by the deputy head teacher at the
R3.2 A good use of colour schools; however, two were completed by the
R3.3 Durable, high-quality finishes school’s facilities manager.
R3.4 A comfortable internal air temperature The overall perspectives of the average rating for
R3.5 A comfortable internal air quality each DQI are shown in Table 2. As illustrated in
R3.6 Good acoustic conditions and insulation against noises Table 2, the three questions asked regarding site
from corridors, etc. issues were scored highly by all the respondents.
School facilities They all ranked in the top 4 of Table 2 and all had a
R4.1 Teaching spaces mean above 4. In terms of spread, R1.3 had the
R4.2 Sports halls lowest variance and therefore standard deviation of
R4.3 Learning resource areas all of the variables. Although not as low, R1.1 and
R4.4 Storage areas R1.2 also had very low variances in relation to the
R4.5 Dining and associated social spaces rest of the variables. However, the responses to
R4.6 Toilets and changing facilities space planning design issues were more varied than
Operational issues site issues. Although R2.6 was ranked equal first,
R5.1 The rate of deterioration of the building R2.3 ranked a lowly 16th. This spread of results is
R5.2 Maintenance contractors ensure safety and clean up after clear from the variation calculations, only one of
a job which is less than 0.500. Sample school 14 ranked
R5.3 Response time to urgent repair issues highest in this element with a mean score of 4.83
R5.4 Compliance with planned maintenance while samples 2 and 7 had the lowest ranking with a
R5.5 Maintenance of the school grounds mean of 3. This disagreement might be attributed to
R5.6 Maintenance of school access points that fact the initial expectation (sometimes referred
to as the anchoring view) about building
performance of some of the survey participants is
FINDINGS: OVERALL OBSERVATION fixed in a way that is reflect in bias in their answers.
Of the 63 secondary schools contacted, 15 responded The idea behind this is that the answer of the
to the questionnaire, a response rate of 23.8%. This respondent is based on their past experiences rather
rate of response is similar to that of other studies. than current experience. R3.2, R3.6 and R3.1 are, in
Our sample size is only two cases short of the study terms of their mean, ranked in the middle of Table 2.
carried out by Cardellino et al. (2009) We tried to However, R35, R3.4 and R3.3 sit much lower down
increase the response rate by asking for an interview the same table.
with those did not replay. But unfortunately school Those lower ranked variables also have variance
heads and their representative were unable to figures greater than 1.0, which perhaps highlights a

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT

266 A. STRINGER et al.

TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics for all responses variables, these are distorted by sample 14, which
Rank Mean Standard deviation Variance had a mean of 5.00. Only one other sample had a
R2.6 ¼1 4.27 0.884 0.781 mean above 4.00 and this suggests that there are a
R2.4 ¼1 4.27 0.799 0.638 number of problems with the operation and
R1.2 ¼1 4.27 0.799 0.638 maintenance of those schools in the sample group.
R4.2 ¼4 4.20 0.676 0.457 In the next section we try to explain the reason
R1.1 ¼4 4.20 0.676 0.457 behind some of the findings in the table.
R4.1 ¼4 4.20 0.676 0.457
R1.3 ¼4 4.20 0.561 0.314 FINDINGS: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
R4.6 8 4.07 0.961 0.924 All the variables under the site heading of the
R3.2 9 3.87 0.915 0.838 questionnaire ranked very highly in Table 2, and this
R3.6 ¼10 3.80 0.941 0.886 area is by far the strongest of the study. This is
R3.1 ¼10 3.80 0.941 0.886 encouraging as BSF schools have been criticized in
R2.2 ¼10 3.80 0.941 0.886 the past for lacking a civic presence and sense of
R2.1 ¼10 3.80 0.775 0.600 place. It also suggests that the exemplar schemes
R2.5 14 3.73 0.704 0.495 are not simply being ‘dropped’ onto sites in an
R4.5 15 3.67 0.976 0.952 arbitrary manner but are considering the orientation
R2.3 16 3.60 1.121 1.257 and view out of the site (R1.3). This is a marked
R4.3 17 3.53 1.187 1.410 improvement over those schools referred to by
R4.4 18 3.33 0.976 0.952 CABE as glorified portal frames with little or no
R5.2 19 3.20 1.146 1.314 public presence (CABE, 2006b).
R5.5 20 3.13 1.060 1.124 The wide differences in rank between the space
R3.5 ¼21 3.00 1.000 1.000 planning variables is most likely a result of the
R5.1 ¼21 3.00 0.926 0.857 wide-ranging issues that are a part of the design
R3.4 ¼21 3.00 1.195 1.429 area. R2.6, concerned with ‘providing accessible
R5.6 24 2.93 1.100 1.210 access for all’ was ranked equal first. The tight
R5.4 ¼25 2.80 1.265 1.600 regulation of approved document M (mobility), and
R5.3 ¼25 2.80 1.320 1.743 the objective nature of the question, is contributing
R3.3 27 2.40 1.121 1.257 factors to this rank.
On the other hand, R2.3, which deals with ‘the
flexibility and adaptability of spaces’, ranked 16th.
particularly subjective area of design or one which has Although a high variance of 1.257 suggests that
improved/declined significantly over the time frame of some schools successfully implemented flexible
the sample group. There is also a split among school spaces, it is a more subjective question and not
facilities design issues: R4.1, R4.2 and R4.6 are regulated. Suggestions are made in BB98; however
ranked between fourth and eighth, while R4.5, R4.3 are non-statutory.
and R4.4 sit between 15th and 18th. Only R4.1 and In addition to this, ‘designing-in’ flexibility often
R4.2 have variances of less than 0.5 which perhaps involves additional expenses that are often cost
suggests that there are many factors that impact planned out, rather than value engineered in. As a
upon say a learning resource centre (R4.3); and that practical example, a suite of classrooms may be
a ranked questionnaire response is unable to expand separated by a series of foldable partition walls that,
upon these issues. What are noticeable from our when opened, can be used to teach several classes
findings are the operational variables (i.e. at once, or used to sit exams and therefore maintain
maintenance of school access points, compliance use of the sports hall throughout the year. Although
with planned maintenance and response time to this is often the preferred scenario, these foldable
urgent repair issues) were all ranked near the bottom partitions cost a great deal of money and often
of Table 2. Although the variances are high for all the require supporting structural elements. These

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT


elements are often kept at the expense of other areas
of design or dropped all together.
More encouragingly, R2.4, which assesses how
‘easy [it is] to find your way around the school’, also
ranked joint first. This suggests a real improvement
from the CABE (2006b) report, where many schools
were heavily criticized for diluting exemplar schemes
which resulted in excessive travel distances and
dead-end corridors.
As with space planning, there is a clear split
among the building performance variables. R3.1,
R3.2 and R3.6 all scored mid-table rankings (see
Table 1) and are concerned with ‘a good quality of
light’, ‘a good use of colour’ and ‘good acoustic
conditions’. Although light and acoustic qualities
could be measured objectively using a scientific
study, the questionnaire responses are assumed to
be more subjective. As with the disabled access
provision, these areas have specific guidance that is
outlined in building bulletins 90 (lighting) and 93
(acoustics).
The lower scoring variables, R3.4, R3.5, rated how
comfortable the ‘internal temperature’ and ‘internal air
quality’ were, and both scored very lowly. As shown in
Table 2 variance of these variables was greater than
1.0, this indicates that the quality of design of
studied schools (i.e. R3.4, R3.5) differ considerably.
Nevertheless, both areas scored very low mean
scores which imply that the ventilation and thermal
strategies may have been compromised by a poor
space planning design, or that the strategies were
poorly integrated into the overall design (perhaps the
heart of the problem). The lowest scoring variable of
all was R3.3 which rated the effectiveness of
‘durable, high quality finishes’ in the design. This is a
worrying statistic because CABE (2006b) singled out
the quality of finishes in their audit and it would
appear that the standard of finishes has not
improved since then (maybe due to the fact that
where there are regulatory requirements – standards
are improved to meet them. Internal finishes are
often judged by the client team and are more
subjective). One might attribute this continuing
problem quality of finishes to the minimization of
capital costs. Probably if a proper trade-off analysis
between capital and operational costs is carried out,
the school stakeholders might found that it was
Schools design quality 267
better to spent more on capital costs to save on
long-term operational and maintenance costs.
Finally, it is important to consider the performance
of the building that the BSF school replaced. It could
be the case that some respondents scored the
building performance highly in comparison with the
poor performance of the previous building and not
against the highest standards that schools should
meet. It was beyond the scope of this work to
establish if that was the case however. Those
facilities that ranked well were general teaching
spaces (R4.1), sports halls (R4.2), and toilets/
changing facilities (R4.6). It is encouraging that the
key teaching spaces scored well and is perhaps a
reflection on the improved knowledge of the design
team and contractors, as well as the guidance that is
provided by the DCSF and Sports England. The
DCSF has a series of best-practice examples of
classrooms, toilets and changing facilities that can
be used as a sound starting point by the design
team and the client. Sports England’s guidance on
the standards expected from sports halls, from the
dimensions of the space to the colour of the walls
and quality of lighting required, set a high standard
that the hall must meet. Unfortunately, several
spaces did not score so well. Storage areas (R4.4)
ranked 18th and had a variance less than 1.0.
Although it is difficult to read too much into this
result, storage has been an area which has attracted
a considerable criticism in the past, not just from
CABE but also from teaching unions (Gates, 2006). It
appears that the storage provisions of BB98 are not
adequate for the teaching methods promoted at
these new schools. Research in the past has found
that this is real health issue for students, particularly
in relation to weight from school bags. Whittfield,
Legg, and Hedderley (2001) found ‘Heavy
schoolbags, long carriage durations and lack of
access to lockers amongst third formers, could
contribute to the production or maintenance of
musculoskeletal symptoms’.
Finally, R4.3 (learning resource areas) and R4.5
(dining and associated social spaces) ranked 17th
and 15th, respectively. Although the variance was
greater than 1.0 for these variables, it is worth noting
that these spaces are significantly larger and more
complex than general teaching spaces and changing
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
268 A. STRINGER et al.

FIGURE 1 Mean score of design quality constructs

facilities. It is not possible to explain these rankings most recently completed schemes in the sample.
fully using the data gathered from the questionnaire, The highest-ranked variable was R5.2 which was
due to the use of rated responses (which does not concerned with the safety and cleanliness of
encourage respondents to present their reasoning). maintenance jobs. As with variables R2.6 (access),
However, it is possible that the low rankings are due R3.1 (lighting) and R3.6 (acoustics), safety is a
to the large number of design factors that impact heavily regulated area and therefore scored well
upon the spaces and specific client requirements within its category. Its low rank overall is of concern,
which will vary across schools due to the way that although the high variance of 1.314 suggests that
the staffs wishes to manage the spaces, which the mean ranking could suggest differences in
therefore may result in a compromised design. performance in studied schools.
The operational issues variables all performed The lowest-ranked variables were R5.4 and R5.3,
poorly in the questionnaire, and ranked between which rated ‘compliance with planned maintenance’
19th and 25th in Table 2. The variances of each and the ‘response time to urgent repair issues’. Both
variable were unusually high as well. This indicates a
considerable performance difference between the
studied schools in relation to these DQIs. Another
explanation of the high variances could be that there
are two bands of maintenance and operational
performance: one above than the mean and another
below. Figure 1 seems to confirm this theory. Four
samples lie much below the mean score while the
rest are slightly above the mean as shown in
Figure 1. The four samples have little in common
other than they were all procured under an Local
Education Partnership (LEP) (half were design and
build contracts, the other half PFI) and were the FIGURE 2 Schools design in our study

ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT


relate to management issues on the part of the LEP,
who are responsible for the maintenance of the
building stock. It would therefore seem that some
LEPs are struggling to operate efficiently at this
stage of the BSF programme which is
understandable in some respects because they
represent a major culture shift to the local authorities
who prior to the LEP would have had total control
over maintenance contracts. The PfS and LEPs are
both keen to show that BSF is on schedule and
being completed to budget. The easiest way for the
private sector partner to do this is to prioritize
building contracts over maintenance contracts until
the construction work of that wave is complete.
Therefore, it could be that the maintenance
performance of those schools completed at the start
of the wave is below standard until the completion
of the wave. This theory would explain the two
tiers of performance in this category of variables and
that the weakest-performing schools were the most
recently completed.
In CABE’s (2006) report, ‘Assessing secondary
school design quality’, a ranking system was used
which split schools into five different bands: – poor
(0– 20%), mediocre (20– 40%), partially good (40–
60%), good (60– 80%) and excellent (80– 100%).
These percentages were calculated using the mean
of their scores on a DQI assessment. It is therefore
FIGURE 3 How good are new schools in our survey
Schools design quality 269
possible to compare the findings of their research
with this work using a similar method.
The first comparison is between the percentages
of schools in each quality category. When
comparing our findings in Figure 2 with CABE 2006,
the percentage of excellent, good and partially good
schools appears to have increased from 2000– 2005
to 2006– 2009. The percentage of poor and
mediocre schools has dropped to 0% by 2006–
2009. However, this result should be treated with
caution due to our limited data sample.
The second comparison is concerned with the
procurement method of the school and the impact
this has on design quality. CABE found a split in
quality between PFI schools and design and build.
Using the same format for the sample used in this
work, Figure 3 reveals that the quality of PFI schools
has improved greatly since 2005. The quality of
design and build schools has not declined since
CABE survey but remained static which suggests
that the experience and familiarity of design teams
with PFI contracts have enabled design quality to
improve. (Although current trends in procurement
are now changing since the CONLIB coalition came
to power.)
The final comparison concerns the relationship
between each of the three different categories of
design quality (functionality, impact and build quality)
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
270 A. STRINGER et al.
FIGURE 4 How did the schools score on the three indicators? 2006–2009
and the overall score of each school. The results of
(CABE, 2006b) survey showed that all three areas
were strongly linked to the overall score, that is, a
poor school scored weakly in all areas; an excellent
one scored highly in all areas. From the sample
group used in this research (Figure 4), a generally
similar picture emerges; however, it is possible to
further subdivide the graph in order to further
analyse the results. In the first section, the overall
score is severely affected by the poor quality of the
‘build quality’ indicators. These three schools are all
ranked as ‘partially good’ because of this. The
second subdivision is defined by the performance of
the ‘impact’ indicators, which score much higher
than ‘functionality’ and ‘build quality’. However, the
overall score of these samples is much closer to the
lower-scoring categories than to the line of ‘impact’
which suggests that the research questions were
weighted more towards the ‘functionality’ and ‘build
quality’ categories because they have a greater
bearing over the overall score. The third subdivision
has the greatest variance between the three
categories. ‘Build quality’ is once again below the
average score, but is balanced out by the
performance of ‘functionality’ and ‘impact’, which
are both considerably above the line of the overall
score. This suggests that these schools are able to
operate at a reasonable, but less than optimal level,
despite the build quality design issues. The overall
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
observation is that all of the design indicators scores
increased at a similar rate, with ‘functionality’ and
‘impact’ scoring very well whereas ‘build quality’ is
perceived to have improved to achieve a suitable
standard.
CONCLUSION
The aim of this case study was to investigate aspects
of design quality standards procured via the PFI
method. The areas that were identified by past
research as being weakest were: the clarity of the
building envelope; a lack of public presence;
convoluted circulation patterns with either dead-end
corridors or long travel distances; poor acoustic,
lighting and ventilation strategies; the specification
of inadequately resilient materials; and a lack of
storage spaces. From the analysis and discussion of
these results, it is suggested that the issues relating
to site, which are the clarity of the building envelope
and creation of a public presence, appear to have
been resolved in the opinion of the survey
respondents.
Another area that appears to have improved
greatly is circulation. This is evidenced by joint first
ranked R2.4, which rated how ‘easy [it is] to find
your way around the school’. However, the other
areas of concern remain unsatisfactory. Material
specification in particular performed very poorly as
did the quality of building maintenance, which was

not a part of CABE’s research. Comparisons with the
results produced by CABE, which surveyed schools
completed between 2000 and 2005, did suggest an
improvement in the more recent sample group. The
percentage of poor and mediocre schools fell to zero
and the percentage of excellent schools trebled. It
would appear that PFI schools have performed
significantly better than schools procured under the
Design & Build method.
Although, the Building Schools for the Future
programme has since been closed by the new
Coalition Government following criticism over cost
and delivery, this study has design policy
implications in particular regarding the choice of
finishes. One of the main challenges is to try to find
an optimum solution between capital and
maintenance costs. It seems obvious that having
chosen the lower-quality finishes might result in high
maintenance costs. It appears this fact was ignored
or least not taken into consideration, during the
selection of finishes. This might be due to that fact
the design service life of PFI schools is only 30
years. Further research should explore the
relationship between capital cost and quality of
finishes. This may lead to improved selection of
finishes and ultimately user experience. Also an
interesting question for future research would be to
find out if stakeholders, that is, end user, PFI
provider, financiers, designers and contractors share
certain design quality values that could lead to a
better schools design (Building Magazine, 2012).
The relevance of the issues highlighted in this
paper are given additional weight by the comments
of Mairi Johnson, director of design at the Education
Funding Agency, the current governments schools
design body, who has recently confirmed that
‘baseline information’ only will be available to
schools designers on the first round of the
governments new £2 billion priority Schools
Building Programme – providing only basic
recommendations on the specifics of new school
design.
Johnson also confirmed that the Education
Funding Agency had no plans to publish the POE
research conducted by its precursor body,
Partnership for Schools, on the previous BSF
programme – despite the need to help feed
Schools design quality 271
information into future programmes. Johnson says
‘It’s no longer the intention to publish the POE work.
It was done under the previous government and was
an analysis of BSF schools and we are not building
BSF schools anymore. . .’
REFERENCES
Aecom & Sweett, C., (2011). Lessons we have learned. Building Design,
1 –4. Retrieved from www.targetzero.info
Building Act. (1984). Chapter 55 [online] HMSO. Retrieved from http://
www.opsi.gov.uk/revisedstatutes/acts/ukpga/1984/cukpga_
19840055_en_2#pt1, accessed 5th January, 2010.
Building Magazine. (2012, April 20). Government drops plans for
standardised school design. Building Magazine, 9.
Byles, T. (2007). Letters to the editor. Contract Journal, 437(6655), 22.
Cardellino, P., Leiringer, R., & Clements-Croome, D. (2009). Exploring the role
of design quality in the buidling schools for the future programme.
Architectural Engineering & Design Management, 4, 249 – 262.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment [CABE]. (2006a).
Assessing secondary school design quality. London.
CABE. (2006b). Assessing secondary school design quality: research report.
CABE. (2007). Creating excellent secondary schools: a summary for clients.
CABE. (2009). Minimum design standard. Retrieved from http://www.cabe.
org.uk/design-review/schools/minimum-design-standard, accessed 5
December 2009.
Crump, H. (2008). BSF schools approved despite CABE criticisms. Building
Design, (1808), 3.
Department for Children, Schools & Families [DCSF]. (2007). Building bulletin
102: Designing for disabled children and children with special educational
needs [online] DCSF. Retrieved from http://www teachernet.gov.uk/
_doc/13210/BB102.pdf.
Department for Education and Skills [DfES]. (2006). Building bulletin 98:
Briefing framework for secondary school projects [online]. Retrieved from
http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.ukdocuments/Design/BB98.pdf,
accessed 4th January 2010.
Erdem, M., Baryan, H., & Fernandez, A. (2011, March). Pulling together.
RIBA Journal. Retrieved from http://www.firsteducationalliance.com/
article01.html
Evans, C. (2011, April 15). No short cuts. Building Design. Retrieved from
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/comment/letters/no-short-cuts/
5016790.article
Evans, J.R., & Lindsay, W.M. (2008). The management and control of quality
(7th. ed.). Quebec: South-Western.
Farrow, T., & Vanderkaay, S. (2011). Design quality standards: intangibles
that bring hospitals to life, pp. 1 – 6. Retrieved from www.
worldhealthdesign.com
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
272 A. STRINGER et al.
Finch, P. (2009, July 9). Why must our schoxols be second class?.
Architect’s Journal, 230(2), 17.
Finn, G. (2011). Building quality into design engineering, pp. 1 – 4. Retrieved
from www.qualitydesign.com
Gates, C. (2006, March 31). Academies ‘could do better’. Building Design
(1715), 3.
Grew, B. (2002). Investing in education. Architect’s Journal, 216(14), 39.
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee Sustainable Schools.
Are we building schools for the future? Seventh Report of Session 2006 –
2007, p. 14.
Partnerships for Schools. (2007). Funding guidance for BSF projects,
including academies (p. 3). London: Author [online]. Retrieved January 4,
2010, from http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/documents/
BSF_Guidance_Documents/FundingGuidanceforBSFProjectsIncluding
AcademiesAugust2007.doc
Partnerships for Schools. (2008). An introduction to Building Schools for the
Future (2008 ed.) London: Author [online]. Retrieved January 4, 2010,
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING AND DESIGN MANAGEMENT
http://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/documents/BSF_Guidance_
Documents/BSF%20Introductory%20Guide%202008.pdf
Partnerships for Schools. (2009). What is the role of PfS in the MDS?
London: Author [online]. Retrieved December 6, 2010, from http://
www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/library/minimum_design_
standard.jsp
Pricewaterhouse Coopers. (2001). Building better performance: An empirical
assessment of the learning and other impacts of schools capital
investment brief, Government Report, 1, 20– 24. Retrieved from https://
www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/
RB407
Rogers, D. (2011, February 22). Is it all over for School Design? Building
Design. Retrieved from http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/analysis/is-it-
all-over-for-school-design?/5013602.article
Whittfield, K., Legg, S., & Hedderley, D. (2001), The weight and use of
schoolbags in New Zealand secondary schools. Ergonomics, 44(9),
18– 23.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.